Case study of economic law: Does the behavior of Johnson & Johnson Shanghai and Johnson & Johnson China constitute the maintenance of resale price, and why?

At 9: 30 this morning, CourtNo. 12 of Shanghai Higher People's Court is making a final judgment on the dispute over vertical monopoly agreement between Beijing Ruibang Yonghe Science and Trade Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Ruibang Company) and Johnson & Johnson (Shanghai) Medical Devices Co., Ltd. and Johnson & Johnson (China) Medical Devices Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Johnson & Johnson Company). The Shanghai Higher People's Court revoked the original judgment, and the appellee Johnson & Johnson Company should compensate the appellant Ruibang Company for its economic loss of 530,000 yuan within 10 days from the effective date of the judgment, and reject the remaining claims of Ruibang Company.

After the verdict was pronounced, the agent of Ruibang Company immediately stated that "this final judgment embodies the principle of reasonable analysis in judicial interpretation and the court is very professional". After the verdict was pronounced, 10 15, the Shanghai High Court held a media meeting to introduce the basic situation of the case to dozens of media and answer questions from relevant media.

So far, this monopoly case, which has attracted much attention from academic circles and industries at home and abroad, has finally been settled after three years of trial by two courts. On the occasion of the fifth anniversary of the implementation of the Anti-Monopoly Law, this case became the first effective judgment in the history of our country in which the plaintiff won the case, which also indicates that the plaintiff who is in a relatively weak position in monopoly disputes in the future will be protected by law as long as the evidence is sufficient.

The monopoly lawsuit between Ruibang Company and Johnson & Johnson Company originated from a competitive sale of Johnson & Johnson medical suture in 2008. Ruibang Company is the distributor of medical suture, stapler and other medical devices of Johnson & Johnson Company. The cooperation relationship between the two parties is 15 years, and the distribution contract is signed once a year. On June 5438+ 10, 2008, Johnson & Johnson Company and Ruibang Company signed the 2008 Distribution Contract (hereinafter referred to as the Distribution Contract) and its annexes, stipulating that Ruibang Company will sell the products of Ai Kang Suture Department in the relevant areas designated by Johnson & Johnson Company. During this period, Ruibang Company shall not sell products at a price lower than that stipulated by Johnson & Johnson Company.

In March of that year, Ruibang Company won the bid for the sale of Johnson & Johnson medical suture in Peking University People's Hospital at the lowest price. In April, Johnson & Johnson personnel warned Ruibang that its bid was too low.

In July, Johnson & Johnson cancelled its distribution rights in Fuwai Hospital and Plastic Surgery Hospital on the grounds that Ruibang Company reduced its price privately. From August 15, Johnson & Johnson will no longer accept orders for medical suture products from Ruibang Company. In September, Johnson & Johnson completely stopped supplying suture products and stapler products. In 2009, Johnson & Johnson no longer renewed the distribution contract with Ruibang Company. After 2009, Johnson & Johnson revised the distribution agreement and abandoned the minimum resale price limit. During the cooperation between Ruibang Company and Johnson & Johnson Company 15 years, the price of medical suture products involved remained basically unchanged.

On August 20 10/10, Ruibang Company sued the court, demanding that Johnson & Johnson Company compensate the economic losses caused by the execution of the monopoly agreement punishing Ruibang Company's low-price bidding behavior140,000 yuan. On May 12 and 18, the court of first instance ruled that Ruibang Company did not provide enough evidence to prove that the agreement to limit the minimum resale price involved in this case caused damage to exclude and restrict market competition, and could not be regarded as a monopoly agreement as stipulated in the anti-monopoly law, so it decided to reject its application.

Ruibang Company refused to accept the appeal, and the Shanghai High Court held three sessions. Ruibang Company and Johnson & Johnson Company launched a new round of angry words in court, and entrusted two well-known domestic economists, Professor university of international business and economics Gong Jiong and Professor Tan from Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, to provide expert advice to the court. This lawsuit is highly concerned by people in the industry at home and abroad, and is called "the first case of vertical monopoly in China".

After the verdict was pronounced today, Professor Huang Yong, a well-known domestic anti-monopoly expert, deputy head of the expert advisory group of the the State Council Anti-monopoly Committee and director of the university of international business and economics Competition Law Center, who was attending the Second China Competition Policy Forum, said: "This is a landmark judgment, with more than 44,000 words of judgment and incisive reasoning, which shows that after the United States and the European Union, China courts not only have enough professional ability to hear anti-monopoly cases,